Paula Dwyer: Billionaires got few dividends in presidential race

The Memphis Commercial Appeal ^ | January 3, 2016 | Paula Dwyer

[2ndDivisionVet]

Throughout 2015, we kept hearing warnings that wealthy individuals would dominate the presidential election, and perhaps even influence the outcome, all because of court-made changes in campaign-finance law that allowed unlimited contributions and spending.

So why did Big Money in politics end up to be a big bust in 2015?

Super PACs -- political action committees that can accept unlimited amounts from just about anyone but can't coordinate with the candidate -- have been spending money, yet have little to show for it.

Other dark-money sources -- essentially nonprofit social-welfare groups that don't have to disclose their donors -- had financed fewer than 20 percent of the television advertisements that ran through Dec. 9, according to a recent study. And almost all of those ads were for Marco Rubio.

The overall picture could change, of course, as the primary contests approach or once the general-election campaign begins next summer.

This year, however, the more the outsiders spent, the lower their candidates' poll numbers went, according to a study published on Dec. 15 by the Center for Responsive Politics. The research, which the watchdog group conducted with the Wesleyan Media Project, showed that super PACs had sponsored 81 percent of the TV ads in the presidential primaries through Dec. 9....

[spintreebob]

Conclusion: Freedom of speech is nothing to be feared.
Citizens United is nothing to be feared.